User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-31010985-20191101112654/@comment-24894325-20200111231156
My next question is to the OP. Among a series of his edits that drew my attention to the anthology was this Special:Diff/2826049. There he created a red link for a book called An Eloquence of Time and Space written by James Wylder, self-published [1] and described as "The Unauthorized, Unofficial, poetic guide". However, Arcbeatle Press lists this book on its website and Borisashton clearly believes the book should be present here on the wiki.
My question is regarding the picture of the TARDIS on the cover. The TARDIS is well-known to be copyrighted and trademarked by BBC. It is one of the best recognisable symbols of the show and is very useful to have on the cover for marketing a book about Doctor Who. However, the book bears the inscription "This book is not authorised by the BBC or any of its affiliates."
Hence, my question: why was it legal for James Wylder to use somebody else's trademark on the cover of his commercially sold book without permission? Since Borisashton thinks the book belongs on the wiki, he clearly understands this. Which part of the copyright law allows this?
The book does state "All illustrations are limited in scope and serve to enhance the text, and do not represent an accurate depiction of any elements from the shows they are depicting, aside from the image of K-9, which is licensed from Welkin Productions." But it is the whole TARDIS and having a TARDIS on the cover of a book about Doctor Who shows a clear intention of using a copyrighted and trademarked image.
K-9 is on the back cover. So could the OP please explain why it was necessary to license the image of K-9 on the back cover but not necessary to license the image of the TARDIS on the front cover?
One might ask, what is the relevance of this to the validity debate. By now two users, the OP and Scrooge MacDuck suggested that this debate should simply trust Arcbeatle Press's statements:
The precedent this would create would be that we trust Arcbeatle not that we allow anything posted on personal blogs.
what we're doing here is setting a precedent that we trust Arcbeatle Press specifically, not that anything published on a blog goes.
Thus, the argument hinges on Arcbeatle Press's understanding of copyright law. Part of trusting them is our confidence that they know the copyright law and always abide by it. Hence, I would appreciate if the OP could contribute to this confidence.
